On 08/28, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 8/28/23 3:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Could you review 6/6 as well?
I think we can wait patch 6/6 after
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@xxxxxxxxxx/
is merged.
OK.
Should I fold 1-5 into a single patch? I tried to document every change
and simplify the review, but I do not want to blow the git history.
Currently, because patch 6, the whole patch set cannot be tested by
bpf CI since it has a build failure:
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/5580
Heh. I thought this is obvious. I thought you can test 1-5 without 6/6
and _review_ 6/6.
I simply can't understand how can this pull/5580 come when I specially
mentioned
> 6/6 obviously depends on
>
> [PATCH 1/2] introduce __next_thread(), fix next_tid() vs exec() race
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> which was not merged yet.
in 0/6.
I suggest you get patch 1-5 and resubmit with tag like
"bpf-next v2"
[Patch bpf-next v2 x/5] ...
so CI can build with different architectures and compilers to
ensure everything builds and runs fine.
I think we can wait for
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@xxxxxxxxxx/
as you suggest above, then I'll send the s/next_thread/__next_thread/
oneliner without 1-5. I no longer think it makes sense to try to cleanup
the poor task_group_seq_get_next() when IMHO the whole task_iter logic
needs the complete rewrite. Yes, yes, I know, it is very easy to blame
someone else's code, sorry can't resist ;)
The only "fix" in this series is 3/6, but this code has more serious
bugs, so I guess we can forget it.
Oleg.